Does bad music exist?

Does bad music exist? This questions needs to be clarified. It is certainly true that a given piece of music (or even whole genres of music) might not be interesting to you. But that doesn't make the music bad. It just means that the music lacks appeal to you, and this is NOT what I mean by "bad music". Bad music is music that is actually wrong in that it has incorrect notes, chords, rhythms, etc. It is true that individual styles of music have their own rules, and violating these rules leads to music that is regarded as bad by purists of the style. But breaking the rules can also lead to innovation, even creating a new style of music. So the bad music may not be bad after all. Some say that the innovators can get away with breaking the rules because they know they are breaking the rules. However, ultimately this makes no sense because it makes no difference to the final product whether or not a broken rule was deliberate.

The point is that regardless of what any given piece of music sounds like, there will always be someone who likes it. And if someone likes a given piece of music, then it deserves to exist even if no one else likes it. If this is the case, then maybe bad music doesn't exist. What to you think?

 

Yes. And a lot of it. 

Lewian wrote: To call something bad music doesn't mean anything else than that who calls it so doesn't like it.

The Anders wrote: Yes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwOpD1JRGkc

The Anders wrote: Because the singer can't sing, and they don't play well. Also, the composition is very uninteresting.

I think most music today, and especially popular music, is bad not because it has wrong notes, chords or rhythms, but because it doesn't allow anything but right ones. All quantized, pitch corrected, souless garbage.

Edited by The Anders - April 19 2020 at 14:31

I see what you mean.

I'd say yes, one could say that it exists in various forms and in various ways, just as bad movies exist like Ed Wood films or Tommy Wiseau's The Room, but in another way those I find good. I enjoy them, they worked for me not just despite the flaws, but because of those perceived flaws. Perception matters. Some things are technically incompetent, and it seems to totally fail to hit the mark it was aiming for. Incompetent. But I love Ed Wood films and The Room. I can love "so bad it's good", but then the question might follow, "If it's so bad it's good, then doesn't that ultimately just mean it's good?" I classify some things under the "They're so bad they're bad" label, but that does reflect my biases. A parent may go to child's recital and think, "How wonderful" despite all the wrong notes, a magical experience, I might go and hear that child and think what a racket. Then hear my own child and despite it being just as wrong, really appreciate it and focus on the good. It is experiential and so dependent on the listener, our biases, and the expectations.

I have used this example before, think of musical performance, a totally untalented beginner pianist who tries to play Liszt, the source material is good, but the music of the performance itself (that which we hear, process, experience) is bad. A professional pianist plays the piece perfectly.One is clearly the better performance from a technical standpoint, but does that make the child's performance inherently bad? I'd say no. I'd have different expectations.

A favourite album of mine is The Shagg's Philososophy of the World, but it is performed quite incompetently. I find it delightful, and I could say it's good in a way, in that it's good for me.   Actually, the imperfections are what make it better. Often I prefer what is generally perceived as bad to what is mediocre. I'm going to go with something of a cop-out and say yes and no. Even the worst performances and the most amateurish can still have great worth. It depends upon one's framework and expectations. That young child who seems to massacre the work may actually have done a really good job for one that just started.



This is considered bad by many, but many love it. It actually works for me, call it primitivism. The primitive can be acclaimed. For beginners, I think thy did an awesome job and were very successful in gaining listeners and followers. Zappa praised them, if ironically I don't know. I'd be really proud of such an accomplishment. So actually, from that perspective, I think it's good.

I'm in two minds about this. It depends on the approach and mind-set. Music is a collaborative experience between the composer and performer who generates the sounds and the brain of the subject. It's a relationship between the composer, the intent, the performing which generates sound waves, and the brain that interprets that noise. There are differences in hearing and brain chemistry, and every brain will interpret and filter the music differently, and an individual's brain will not process it quite the same at different times.

So I would say it depends so much on expectations, frameworks of analysis, intent, and biases.

Edited by Logan - April 19 2020 at 14:52

handwrist wrote: So a lot of false assumptions in the OP.